Posted by: shannon201 on: May 16, 2009
There is great debate on what is defined as an expert and amateur. For the debates sake I would like to initially define what experts and amateurs mean. An amateur is usally defined as ‘a person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession’. An expert can be defined as ‘a person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject’. Both definitions indicate that both contributors will have a passion or motivation about a certain subject however it is evident that an expert will be more dedicated and committed to their field of interest. This is where experts have rasied concern that websites such as Wikipedia allows amateurs to become ‘self proclaimed’ experts with unsubstantiated ‘theories’ that contend with experts theories that are based on years of research. Academics such as Sanger argue that these websites lack credibility of knowledge and if amateurs are able to access and edit expert’s work than this work must be evidence supported and not just a self-proclaimed theory.
From these concerns experts have established Citizendium, which is a colloborative encyclopedia content system, similiar to wikipedia but ensures that there is a heirarchy system where only experts theories are published. Bruns (2008) states and I also believe that this system can therefore no longer be considered a user-led form of produsage because it’s contributors system is policed and monitors. While wiki-based, registered users who have had to show their academic credentials to become a member are the people allowed to contribute to the website. This approach has been criticized because of its policed form of open colloboration that is hypocritical to the theory of produsage. It forms the idea of elitism and discourages the ever growing culture of so called online ‘amateur’ participation.
However Sanger a critic of Wikipedia and it’s lack of expert knowledge has indentified why Wikipedia is so successful. These characteristics include:
I believe that these points indicate the exact reasons why anyone would want to access information including academics. While academics such as Sanger may not have trust in the credibility of information published on Wikipedia it’s characteristics such as openness, neutrality and ease of editing are what I belive, whether expert or amateur, empower the access of collaborative knowledge. It would be quite evident to those who have experience of interest in a particular field if someone with no knowledge or interest published content on Wikipedia and due to it’s produsage nature would soon be edited by somone with more experience and knowledge thus maintaining the quality of information.
References:
Bruns, A. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: from production to produsage. Peter Lang Publishing: New York. (204-215)
Sanger, L. M. 2001. Britannica or Nupedia? The Futre of Free Encyclopedias. Kuro5hin: Techonology and Culture, from the Trenches. http://www.kuro5hin.org. (accessed 16 May 2009)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/amateur (accessed 16 May 2009)
